Talk:Anahuacalmecac International University Preparatory of North America

Hate Crimes Against Academia - FCC Complaints filed against Hate Radio

This section title is inappropriate for Wikipedia. This section should be entitled, "Criticism of the School" or "FCC Complaints filed against talk radio." Few reasonable readers of this article will take this article seriously if the section titles contain obvious bias or if the section titles are non-encyclopedic. --Tvwatcher 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I really thought this site was unbiased and neutral. This article is ridiculously biased. I've never had much of an issue with you guys until this morning. Facts and only the facts, please!

No offense intended but hate crimes were commited against the school. Aside from criticisms.

Hello all, please sign your comments so it is clear who is making the comment. Furthermore, signing gives an indication that the contributor is standing by his/her comment with integrity. In addition, the term hate crime should not be thrown around lightly in an encyclopedia article; if someone is going to create a section about hate crimes then there better be very reliable, easily accessible sources to back up that section (there are no sources currently). --Tvwatcher 14:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, but i'm still learning the system. Hate crimes have occured against the school. But to remove a factual article mention from a pulitzer prize winner who wrote an editorial on the school. why? That's fact. Removal of it is bias. It falls under criticism of the school and Controversy.

Abstrak 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The school, though located east of los angeles, is not located in "East Los Angeles" proper. East Los Angeles begins as of Lorena St, further past the school and a bit a way south. Abstrak 09:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole article is a hatchet job

I am, frankly, amazed that the NPOV controversy centers around whether or not it's okay to mention alleged hate crimes against the school, when the main article is dripping with POV from beginning to end. "Controversy" is the largest section, consisting of a series of allegations emanating from a single local talk radio host with a record of racist comments against Latinos. "Funding" reads like a hit list of the school's donors, complete with a proselytizing reference to "California taxpayers." For some reason it was deemed important to state that "Although chartered as a K-8 school, the Academia does not have any students enrolled in any grade beyond the 5th." Did the author bother to look into the possibility that this may have something to do with the fact that the school is only five years old? Many new schools begin with only Kindergarten (or only 9th grade for the high school equivalent) and add the new grades year-by-year as the students progress. The "Performance" section is a thinly veiled attempt to portray the school in a negative light. I am considering recommending this article for deletion, as I am skeptical that transforming this ideological hit piece into a real encyclopedia article is possible without rewriting the whole thing from scratch. Randy 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting what a little actual research can do. Looking through some right-wing sites and blogs regarding this school, I found an article with the alarmist title "Does La Raza have its Own School?" on a site called "REDSTATE" that contains the exact same list of donors, in the exact same order, as this article. As a teacher, I have learned to spot instances when my students copy each other's work. This "coincidence" raises the same red flags for me, and further bolsters my suspicion that this article is a product (in some places Copied and Pasted) of the right-wing campaign to get the school shut down, and bears no resemblance to anything objective, informative, or encyclopedic. Randy 21:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is a hatchet job. Constant revamp from the original to it's current state, is constantly edited by peopel who have no source refrence. myself included on some points. The Subject became so edited by "both sides of the debate" that it does not properly address the subject. Plus, wikipedia is not known for originality. ~~abstrak

Do you have any examples of parts of the article that are misleading or imbalanced? How, specifically, could it be made better? 67.101.53.102 19:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Stubbing the article

I removed all sections of the article as they are blatant, unambiguous copyright violations of:

1. Semillas del Pueblo: A Decade of Innovation and Educational Success and
2. Indigenous Education.

I also removed the "False criticism" section as it is an endorsement of a single point of view and is in appropriate for Wikipedia. It would seem that persons related to the school, particularly User:Accurateandtrue and User:Semillas, are currently in the business of editing this article. Please read the relevant policy for persons with conflicts of interest. Wikipedia does not exist to be your school's advertising platform. Any such content will be swiftly removed. 舎利弗 (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability

While the current, trimmed-down article would indicate the school does not qualify for a stand-alone article, I looked in the page history and there is suggestive evidence that a neutral, well-sourced article could be written about this school that would clearly demonstrate that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and therefore qualifies as a stand-alone article.

I say "suggestive" because the sources I saw did not meet the criteria, but the fact that the school was the subject of controversy means there are probably enough other reliable sources out there to demonstrate that this school qualifies for a stand-alone article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)